IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AT AGARTALA
S. Talapatra, S.G. Chattopadhyay, JJ.
Sanirai Kaloi - Appellants
Vs.
The State of Tripura - Respondent
Crl. A. (J) 50 of 2019
Decided On : 22-12-2020
The court held that the victim's consent to sexual intercourse was not vitiated by a misconception of fact as she was aware of the appellant's intention not to marry her. The court also held that the appellant did not commit the offence of cheating as he did not have the intention to deceive the victim.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted of rape and cheating by the trial court. The victim alleged that the appellant had promised to marry her and had sexual intercourse with her on that promise. However, the appellant denied the allegations and claimed that he had never promised to marry the victim. He also stated that he had married another woman before the alleged incident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the victim's consent to sexual intercourse was not vitiated by a misconception of fact as she was aware of the appellant's intention not to marry her. The court also held that the appellant did not commit the offence of cheating as he did not have the intention to deceive the victim.
Issues: 1. Whether the victim's consent to sexual intercourse was vitiated by a misconception of fact? 2. Whether the appellant committed the offence of cheating?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the victim's consent to sexual intercourse was not vitiated by a misconception of fact as she was aware of the appellant's intention not to marry her. The court relied on the victim's own testimony in which she admitted that she was aware that the appellant was not serious about marrying her. The court also noted that the victim had continued to have sexual intercourse with the appellant even after she became aware of his intention not to marry her. 2. The court held that the appellant did not commit the offence of cheating as he did not have the intention to deceive the victim. The court relied on the fact that the appellant had not made any false promises to the victim. The court also noted that the appellant had not taken any steps to conceal his intention not to marry the victim.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant.
JUDGMENT :
S. Talapatra, J.
1. This appeal by the convict is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence respectively dated 03.08.2009 and 05.08.2009 by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur in Case No. ST 25 (GT/A) of 2017 (T-1). By the said judgment, the appellant has been convicted under Section 417/376(2)(n) of the IPC. Pursuant to the said judgment, the appellant has been sentence to suffer rigorous imprisonment of ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 30,000/- with default stipulation for commission of offence punishable under Section 376(2) (n) of the IPC. He has been further sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months for commission of offence punishable under Section 417 of the IPC. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. The period of detention, if any, undergone by the convict during investigation, inquiry and trial, has been directed to be set off from the substantive period of imprisonment.
2. The genesis of the prosecution case is rooted in the complaint (Exbt-1) lodged by the victim (PW-1) [the name is withheld to protect the identity of the victim] to the Officer-in-Charge, Ampinagar Police Station, Gomati District revealing that that the appellant by profession a government teacher had developed a relation that 'of husband and wife' since 2012 on promise of marriage with her. In the complaint, it has been categorically stated that there had been physical relation and the appellant used to come in her house at night and stayed there. The victim used to go to the appellant's rented house. For 'few days' before lodging the complaint, when the victim insisted the appellant to marry her, the appellant refused to marry her. The said affair was known to the parents of the victim as well as of the appellant. On 25.11.2016, when the victim got the information that without apprising her, the appellant had settled his marriage with one girl, the victim informed her father. On the day of filing of the complaint i.e., on 24.11.2016, the village elders and the chieftain held a meeting for an amicable settlement and in the meeting, the appellant admitted the love affair till January, 2014. Till 19.11.2016, according to the victim, the appellant used to call her but by resiling from the promise, he denied to marry the victim and the advice of the meeting as held on 24.11.2016 was also defied by him. On the basis of the said complaint (Exbt-1), Ompi PS Case NO. 2016OMP009 under Section 417/376 of the IPC was registered as is evident from the first information report (Exbt-2) and taken up for investigation.
3. It appears from the record that on completion of the investigation, the police report was filed on chargesheeting the appellant. In due course, on taking cognizance, the police papers were committed to the Sessions Judge, Gomati District, Udaipur for trial. The Sessions Judge, Gomati District Udaipur, had transferred the said case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Gomati District Udaipur, hereinafter referred to as the trial judge, for trial. On 22.08.2017, the charge was framed under Section 417 of the IPC for cheating the victim, by deceiving or dishonestly inducing her to compromise her chastity and to have sexual intercourse on the promise of marriage. The charge was also framed under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC for committing rape repeatedly. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried in accordance with law.
4. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution adduced as many as nine witnesses (PWs-1 to 9) including the victim (PW-1) and proved in the evidence nine documentary evidence (Exbts-1 to 9) including the medical examination report of the victim (Exbt-8) and her statement as recorded under section 164(5) of the CrPC (Exbt-2). After recording of the prosecution's evidence, the appellant was examined under Section 313(1)(b) of the CrPC to have his response to the incriminating materials. In the said examination, the appel
Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in AIR 2019 SC 327
State of H.P. vs. Mango Ram (2000) 7 SCC 224
State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Naushad reported in (2013) 16 SCC 651
Yedla Srinivas Rao v. State of A.P. : (2006) 11 SCC 615
Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2019) 9 SCC 608
Anurag Soni Vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in AIR 2019 SC 1857 : (2019) 13 SCC 1
Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana: (2013) 7 SCC 675
Deelip Singh alias Dilip Kumar vs. State of Bihar reported in (2005) 1 SCC 88
Deepak Gulati vs. State of Haryana reported in (2013) 7 SCC 675
State of Kerala vs. A. Pareed Pillai reported in AIR 1973 SC 326
S.W. Palanitkar And Ors. vs. State Of Bihar reported in (2002) 1 SCC 241
Mahadeo Prasad v. State of W.B.
B. Suresh Yadav vs. Sharifa Bee reported in (2007) 13 SCC 107
Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Vs. Rajvir Industries reported in (2008) 13 SCC 678
Anil Mahajan vs. Bhor Industries Ltd. and another reported in (2005) 10 SCC 228
Nagawwa vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi reported in (1976) 3 SCC 736
K.P. Thimmappa Gowda vs. State Of Karnataka reported in (2011) 14 SCC 475
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.